How long before assault weapons bans are considered unconstitutional?

[ronrdrcr]

Reading the courts opinion, I found this on page 58:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large.  Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.
 But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.

I also just found this while copy and pasting for this post

The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly
chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.

Does this mean that D.C. won't be able to have a semi-automatic handgun ban?

Ron

[DDMac]

I'm thinking it means someone will have to take them back to Federal court. That should be resolved at District Court level though. Much quicker action.

Assault weapon ban?? We got no steenkin assault weapon ban!
Mac.

[ericire12]

Q: How long before assault weapons bans are considered unconstitutional?

A: Never



I think it would be viewed as a "reasonable regulation of arms". The black rifle, after all, has a very large stigma in our society.

[TAB]

There are alot of hoops to jump thru before that would happen, best bet is handle them thru the ballot box. 

Same with the 1986  closing of the machine gun registry.   

[tombogan03884]

A: Never



I think it would be view as a reasonable regulation of arms. The black rifle, after all, has a very large stigma in our society.

I have to disagree on 2 counts,
First the Heller dicision made reference to "Arms in common usage" the AR is the top selling rifle in America today, manufactured by 8 or 9 companies I can think of, that would qualify as pretty common, (like fleas on a dog )
Secondly, the Miller decision, back in the 30's had that stipulation (not sure of exact wording ) about "Suitable to Militia use " . What can be More suitable for militia use than Semi auto clones of military rifles.
Have to agree with TAB though ( sort of  Jury box and ballot box ), Many lawyers will get rich proving it.

[Sponsor]

[ronrdrcr]

I have to disagree on 2 counts,
First the Heller dicision made reference to "Arms in common usage" the AR is the top selling rifle in America today, manufactured by 8 or 9 companies I can think of, that would qualify as pretty common, (like fleas on a dog )
Secondly, the Miller decision, back in the 30's had that stipulation (not sure of exact wording ) about "Suitable to Militia use " . What can be More suitable for militia use than Semi auto clones of military rifles.
Have to agree with TAB though ( sort of  Jury box and ballot box ), Many lawyers will get rich proving it.

Exactly the point I was trying to make.

Ron

[Ron J]

I was actually surprised that the court didn't revisit Miller in more depth.   

[TAB]

I was actually surprised that the court didn't revisit Miller in more depth.   

If they did it would have opened the flood gates to go after every single gun law that has been passed since then... That is something they did not want.  I'm actually shocked they went as far as they did.  I think thats the main reason why it went 5-4.

[tombogan03884]

If they did it would have opened the flood gates to go after every single gun law that has been passed since then... That is something they did not want.  I'm actually shocked they went as far as they did.  I think thats the main reason why it went 5-4.

Maybe, It might also be becuase the 4 would not cast a GOOD vote if you paid them 
I'm ashamed of that a$$hole Souter 

[twyacht]

Maybe, It might also be becuase the 4 would not cast a GOOD vote if you paid them 
I'm ashamed of that a$$hole Souter 

Justice Stevens is right (or left) there with Souter. His dissent stating "No constitutional right is untouchable",....I don't want him or his ilk touching any.